[Zon]

The U.S. Constitution is the final authority, stating what powers the government has. Without getting into the interstate commerce clause abomination, an amendment to the constitution was necessary to prohibit the substance known as alcohol. Similarly, another amendment was necessary to repeal the amendment that prohibited the substance known as alcohol. That was the proper means of prohibiting alcohol. Which says nothing about whether it was good or bad to prohibit alcohol.

A word about the commerce clause highlights how politicians and bureaucrats knowingly violate their oath to uphold the constitution. Several laws are based on misconstrued meaning of the commerce clause  Most absurd are laws asserted to be based on the commerce clause that are acts that take place within a state's borders, never crossing state borderline.

Possession can never involve interstate commerce. Only the transportation of a possession can involve interstate commerce. ...And only when the object possessed crosses from one state to another.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following in Lopez:

"Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8."

[headsonpikes]

bump your post.

[rhombus]

An excellent summary. Thank you. Thomas makes an excellent point. One wonders why fireworks don't receive the same scrutiny.

[robertpaulsen]

"an amendment to the constitution was necessary to prohibit the substance known as alcohol"

Where did you read that one was necessary?